21578. Adulteration and misbranding it tincture digitalis.      IT. S, v. Elmira 
Draar &  Chemical Co.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, $600.     (F. & D. no.
30151.    Sample no. 8274-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of tincture digitalis repre- 
sented to be of pharmacopoeial standard, which was found to have a potency 
of approximately 30 percent of that prescribed by the United States Pharma- 
copoeia for tincture of digitalis. The article contained much more alcohol 
than was declared on the label.
On May 15, 1933, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against the Elmira Drug & Chemical Co., a 
corporation, Elmira, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company in violation of 
the Food and Drugs Act, on or about April 27, 1932, from the State of New 
York into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of tincture digitalis that 
was adulterated and misbranded.    The article was labeled in part: " Tinct.
Digitalis Poison Contains 48 percent Alcohol * * * Guaranteed by Gerity 
Bros. Drug Co. under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, Serial No. 11398 
Gerity Brothers Drug Company   *   *   *   Elmira, N.T."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
it was sold under a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia and 
differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by 
the test laid down in the pharmacopoeia official, at the time of investigation, 
in that the article, when injected into the ventral lymph sac of a frog, had a 
potency for each gram of body weight of frog of not more than 30 percent 
of the minimum systolic dose required by the pharmacopoeia for each gram 
of body weight of frog.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Contains 
48 percent Alcohol * * * Guaranteed by Gerity Bros. Drug Co. under 
the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, Serial No. 11398", borne on the 
bottle label, were false and misleading, in that they represented that the article 
contained 48 percent of alcohol and conformed to the provisions of the Federal 
Food and Drugs Act, whereas it contained not less than 72.8 percent of alcohol 
by volume and did not conform to the provisions of the Federal Food and 
Drugs Act. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article 
contained alcohol and the label on the bottles failed to bear a statement of 
the quantity and proportion of alcohol contained in the article.
On September 12, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company. On October 12, 1933, the court imposed 
a,fine $600.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.